Typically, ghettos are the home of individuals who have a difficult time adapting to civilization. There is a high level of social assistance, drug addiction, illegal activity, and overall smugness and dullness of thought. Society doesn’t cause ghettos, groups of humans do, humans who usually have very little intellectual potential. Although, once and awhile, a rare intellectual comes out of ghettos, but typically they are the home of people who have a lot of issues.

Well, educated males are probably trying to conserve energy, by watching how many frivolous activities they participate in. IE: sporting events, music concerts.

Moreover, if people were really serious about global warming, they would influence each other to cancel events such as the Olympics or the next rock band world tour, but people would rather have their entertainment. Entertainment is more important to most people than the state of the planet. And that is the height of irresponsibility in my view.

Foreigner,

Yet i dont think it has been shown that, smarter mothers make wiser kids. It may turn out that the most submissive and feminine females provide the best nest sites for brainy offspring. As well as superior milking.
Neither do i believe, has history shown its most exceptional men had especially exceptional mothers.

I think its probably more complicated than that, it depends on the genes of both the mother and father, as each parent could probably generate a huge spectrum of personalities. However, I believe that intelligent parents must increase the chances of intelligent offspring. It seems like common sense to me. For instance: If both parents are scientists, their children usually have the mental skills to also become scientists, while other students are poor in math, have poor memories and so on. Moreover, with intelligent parents, not only is the environment going to be more stimulating, but the chances of the child having the right neurology and hormonal balance should be increased.

Typically, ghettos are the home of individuals who have a difficult time adapting to civilization.

How are ghettos not part of society?

Which society do you mean? The college educated high-tech employed white picket fence suburbs? Society of the uber-mensch?

And why are ghettos "the home" of individuals who have trouble "adapting"? Are they where those people freely gather? No, it is where they were born, or were herded into, by circumstance, or by the State.

There is a high level of social assistance, drug addiction, illegal activity, and overall smugness and dullness of thought.

So? There are all of those things among the well educated as well. And where do you get smugness? Does anyone else here agree with smugness as a general characteristic of ghetto dwellers?

Society doesn’t cause ghettos, groups of humans do, humans who usually have very little intellectual potential.

I agree. It is the controllers of society, the ruling class who cause the ghettos. You think it is the poor people who live in them?

Although, once and awhile, a rare intellectual comes out of ghettos, but typically they are the home of people who have a lot of issues.

The same can be said of the cities, the farmland, and the 'burbs. Unconsciousness, ignorance, and insanity predominate everywhere.

Well, educated males are probably trying to conserve energy, by watching how many frivolous activities they participate in. IE: sporting events, music concerts.

Nonsense. Many educated men love to attend sports and concerts. Fortune 500 companies buy season tickets and rent party boxes at arenas and theaters all over. The best seats at the new Yankee Stadium cost over $2,000. Which ghetto person do you think will afford that?

Moreover, if people were really serious about global warming, they would influence each other to cancel events such as the Olympics or the next rock band world tour,

Why? In hopes of lessening the effects of the latest cycle of sun storms upon the planet? Or haven't you heard that global warming is a natural cyclic occurrence? And that the upcoming carbon taxes will be a new way of fleecing the public and lining the pockets of the controllers?

but people would rather have their entertainment. Entertainment is more important to most people than the state of the planet. And that is the height of irresponsibility in my view.

Yes. People. Ghetto and educated both. And the state of the planet is more important to most of them than understanding deeper truths about the lying and the control. A pity.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Although, once and awhile, a rare intellectual comes out of ghettos, but typically they are the home of people who have a lot of issues.

So, you're saying that people in ghettos don't typically have issues?

Carl G wrote:Does anyone else here agree with smugness as a general characteristic of ghetto dwellers?

No. There are some ghetto princesses, there are some who will put on airs to compensate for their low self-esteem, and many who mentally combat someone who they perceive is being snobbish (so gee, I wonder why Ryan perceives ghetto dwellers as generally smug?), but mostly the people there are just people, many with issues, and many of those issues relating to the circumstances of their birth. I agree with Carl on the vast majority of his rebuttal.

At least partially disagreeing with Carl on that point. Although there is a cycle where the globe warms and cools, we are leaping out of the natural parameters of that cycle. Ignoring that is like leaving someone in a burning building because he had a fever anyway.

Does anyone else here agree with smugness as a general characteristic of ghetto dwellers?

Only of those ghetto dwellers that are criminals or gang members. And quite a few of them are. They feel unbeatable, especially in places where the police doesn't have the disposition or desire to put a stop to them.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Although, once and awhile, a rare intellectual comes out of ghettos, but typically they are the home of people who have a lot of issues.

So, you're saying that people in ghettos don't typically have issues?

I read it as him saying ghetto dwellers do typically have issues. And I happen to think that a) some of their issues are legitimate, and b) it is better to have issues than be totally asleep or on greed-auto-pilot, like many of their upscale educated non-ghetto counterparts.

At least partially disagreeing with Carl on that point. Although there is a cycle where the globe warms and cools, we are leaping out of the natural parameters of that cycle. Ignoring that is like leaving someone in a burning building because he had a fever anyway.

Probably subject for a separate thread. As I understand it, the entire solar system is currently heating up due to a huge cyclic spike in sun storm activity. There may be a small added human factor, but it is not on the scale some of us think it is. There is further reason to believe that the powers that be are preparing to use this largely natural occurrence, coupled with the guilt of many in western societies, to institute widespread carbon taxes, as a whole new round of public fleecing. Yes, rivers need to be cleaned and toxic waste abated and contained. Yes, going "green" makes ultimate sense, but the environmental "crisis" is planned to be exaggerated in order for us to be harnessed to line some big private pockets.

If you have evidence to the contrary -- showing that global warming is chiefly a human-caused phenomenon -- please post it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The long-term consequence of intellectuals deciding not to reproduce could be far worse, than if the smart males found the smartest, most genetically fit females, and had a child.

I'm not sure that two wise adults producing a child is the best way to propagate wisdom through out the world.

First, there's always the chance that no matter how wise the parents are, the child could still grow up to be just as ignorant as any other human. Second, it's usually best for humans to reproduce no later than their 20's because the quality of the mother's egg and the father's sperm has been shown to decrease as they get older.

Now this causes a problem, because when two wise individuals are in their 20's, chances are they still have a lot of work to do, philosophically speaking, before they can reach their full potential. Having children requires a lot of time and effort, so we're kind of faced with a decision of do we want to have a baby now while we're most likely to produce a healthy child and risk hindering our own philosophical development, or do we wait to have children so we can reach our philosophical potential even though the quality of the genetic material will probably have been reduced by this time.

There's plenty of other pit falls to having children under our current circumstances. Infants require constant attention, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Parents are also often required by law to provide the child certain things and one might be put in a position where they are forced by the state to do things they otherwise would not want to do. There's also the chance that one becomes so emotionally attached to the child that philosophical and spiritual matters end up taking a back seat. In the case of the wise individual this means much less time for truth and enlightenment. So not only does his own consciousness suffer, but chances are he wont have enough energy and time to communicate what wisdom he has gained to others.

Maybe it would be best if some wise individuals wanted to adopt a child after infancy, as to avoid the responsibility of that stage, and find a child who is a little bit older, at least 3-5 years old. The problem with adoption is that chances are a wise individual will not fit all of the criteria of what the state wants from adopting parents, and I think it can be fairly expensive. Even if two wise individuals managed to juggle raising a child with their own philosophical development, one still wonders; is this the best way to spend one's efforts, as opposed to fulfilling their own potential and spreading wisdom and truth by using certain media outlets via the internet to reach as large an audience as possible? I might be over-estimating the burden of child-rearing, but if it wasn't so difficult and time consuming it would probably be a more viable option for the propagation of wisdom. Hopefully with the development of technology, the difficulty of rearing children will be greatly reduced and it can become a more feasible option for two wise individuals to reproduce and therefore help bring other wise individuals into the world.

And why are ghettos "the home" of individuals who have trouble "adapting"? Are they where those people freely gather? No, it is where they were born, or were herded into, by circumstance, or by the State.

Yes, sometimes, but people also move into ghettos, they move because of addictions, bad luck and so on. And then there are those that live their because they are in the drug trade, and many of these types tend to adopt the cliché views of hip hop culture. IE: blame the police, the state, and their situation in general for the fact that they aren’t able to improve their situation. Justification and blame is a common tactic by people in order to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives, and pick themselves up out of their own mess.

And where do you get smugness? Does anyone else here agree with smugness as a general characteristic of ghetto dwellers?

No, people from all social classes are smug, but at least the upper class are attempting to serve the society and provide some service or good, while people living in ghettos are usually draining more from the society than giving back. Not only are they dependent on the state usually, but they might also be addicted to drugs, participating in other illegal activities on the side, while maintaining a hatred towards authority and state. Some groups are notorious for that sort of victimization, which they use to justify shady behavior.

I agree. It is the controllers of society, the ruling class who cause the ghettos. You think it is the poor people who live in them?

You need controllers of society, or else the whole thing will not work. You need CEOs, accountants, and managers, but the corruption and ignorance is what needs to end, not the ruling class. As long as there is always a spectrum of talent and skill, there will always be those that are more useful to the functioning of that state than others.

Poor people are often caused to have certain personality traits that guarantee that they always remain dumb with money. IE: bad food habits, drug habits, gambling habits, and so on. Successful people are usually able to delay constant gratification, which is a virtue in my opinion.

The same can be said of the cities, the farmland, and the 'burbs. Unconsciousness, ignorance, and insanity predominate everywhere.

Yes, but some places are more diseased than others. A farmland probably has healthier humans than a ghetto. They probably eat better, have a better connection to the natural world, exercise more, and have less vices overall. And they probably don’t blame the state or police for the fact that they are farming for a living.

Nonsense. Many educated men love to attend sports and concerts. Fortune 500 companies buy season tickets and rent party boxes at arenas and theaters all over. The best seats at the new Yankee Stadium cost over $2,000. Which ghetto person do you think will afford that?

This is true, but I’m not suggesting that educated men are necessarily totally wise. All social classes enjoy entertainment, and that is part of the problem.

Why? In hopes of lessening the effects of the latest cycle of sun storms upon the planet? Or haven't you heard that global warming is a natural cyclic occurrence? And that the upcoming carbon taxes will be a new way of fleecing the public and lining the pockets of the controllers?

Maybe, but the long-term consequences will be beneficial to future humans. I’m not expecting that corruption will end any time soon, but if we start moving in the right direction, that is a good start for future generations. And if some corrupt people capitalize on a green revolution, it is worth it.

it is better to have issues than be totally asleep or on greed-auto-pilot, like many of their upscale educated non-ghetto counterparts.

Neither one is desirable.

If you have evidence to the contrary -- showing that global warming is chiefly a human-caused phenomenon -- please post it.

There are so many conflicting theories out there as to why the temperature is changing, that we should probably take the top three that we can tackle and create solutions. For instance: apparently global powers are working on trying to put mirrors in space to try to deflect some of the solar radiation from the sun, they want to try to control the concentration. And then going green with new technology is probably a good idea as well. And then there is a chance that the whole thing isn’t man made, and there is nothing we can do. However, it is better to say we tried, than to never try at all.

Elizabeth,

So, you're saying that people in ghettos don't typically have issues?

Everyone has issues, but some more than others. And some groups notoriously have more issues than others.

so gee, I wonder why Ryan perceives ghetto dwellers as generally smug?), but mostly the people there are just people, many with issues, and many of those issues relating to the circumstances of their birth.

No, people with similar issues tend to gather and live in similar environments. For instance: people who believe in a personal god and savior tend to gather at church, and people who have problems with drug abuse and crime tend to live in ghettos, (not always), and this is why a rationalist would stay away from churches and ghettos.

Shahrazad,

Only of those ghetto dwellers that are criminals or gang members. And quite a few of them are. They feel unbeatable, especially in places where the police doesn't have the disposition or desire to put a stop to them.

Exactly, some of these places have become so dangerous to the public, that I believe swat teams should be sent into many of these ghettos, and exterminate conflicting gangs who behave like territorial killing maniacs on a regular basis. An army should have that power when an area of the city has become diseased beyond repair.

Nick,

Hopefully with the development of technology, the difficulty of rearing children will be greatly reduced and it can become a more feasible option for two wise individuals to reproduce and therefore help bring other wise individuals into the world.

Yeah, I find myself on both sides of the argument when it comes to having children, unable to ultimately make a final conclusion either way. It’s not an easy call to me. I can come with with good reasons to have children and not have children, but in the end, it is like playing dice at this stage...I just don't know.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: the upper class are attempting to serve the society

I would say fleece instead of serve, or maybe serve themselves from the society. That describes the upper-most ruling class mindset more accurately, I think.

and provide some service or good, while people living in ghettos are usually draining more from the society than giving back.

Actually we have the fleecers and the drainers both making a living from the average citizen, who is the slave and does most of the giving.

Not only are they dependent on the state usually, but they might also be addicted to drugs, participating in other illegal activities on the side, while maintaining a hatred towards authority and state. Some groups are notorious for that sort of victimization, which they use to justify shady behavior.

This well describes the fleecer (upper class) just as well as the drainer (ghetto denizen). Much of the uppermost class is addicted to drugs of various kinds, participates in illegal activities, hates the authority of legitimate aspects of the state, such as the Constitution, and feels justified in it's shady behavior by a feeling of elitism (which includes a fear of victimization by the boorish masses, if those masses were to ever take them to task).

I agree. It is the controllers of society, the ruling class who cause the ghettos. You think it is the poor people who live in them?

You need controllers of society, or else the whole thing will not work. You need CEOs, accountants, and managers,

I'm speaking of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission, among a few others, who do very well making the "whole thing" work for themselves, not ordinary CEOs, accountants, and managers.

but the corruption and ignorance is what needs to end, not the ruling class. As long as there is always a spectrum of talent and skill, there will always be those that are more useful to the functioning of that state than others.

I do not agree that we need a ruling class. We need rulers who are neither corrupt nor ignorant. They need not form or be part of a class. Ruling class implies entitlement, conspiracy, and invites corruption.

Poor people are often caused to have certain personality traits that guarantee that they always remain dumb with money. IE: bad food habits, drug habits, gambling habits, and so on. Successful people are usually able to delay constant gratification, which is a virtue in my opinion.

This is dubious science.

The same can be said of the cities, the farmland, and the 'burbs. Unconsciousness, ignorance, and insanity predominate everywhere.

Yes, but some places are more diseased than others. A farmland probably has healthier humans than a ghetto. They probably eat better, have a better connection to the natural world, exercise more, and have less vices overall. And they probably don’t blame the state or police for the fact that they are farming for a living.

Incorrect. I have lived in the country and can tell you some of the laziest, most unhealthy people live there. Rural ghetto, you could say. All the produce is trucked out of the area, the best ends up in urban restaurants and grocers, while the worst is shipped back out to rural supermarkets. The best doctors, teachers, and just about everything else ends up in the cities, too. Few are farming for a living, in the U.S. it is down to 1% I hear, mostly agribiz types. Most barely garden.

If you have evidence to the contrary -- showing that global warming is chiefly a human-caused phenomenon -- please post it.

There are so many conflicting theories out there as to why the temperature is changing, that we should probably take the top three that we can tackle and create solutions.

Wouldn't it make more sense to like figure out which one is correct and then act accordingly?

For instance: apparently global powers are working on trying to put mirrors in space to try to deflect some of the solar radiation from the sun, they want to try to control the concentration.

Why? What concentration?

And then going green with new technology is probably a good idea as well.

This is sensible irrespective of global warming, and is decades overdue. I wonder why?

And then there is a chance that the whole thing isn’t man made, and there is nothing we can do.

If it isn't man-made and there's nothing we can do, why mess with mirrors, your plan A?

However, it is better to say we tried, than to never try at all.

If it is possible to determine that it is a natural cyclic event, and that there is nothing we can do, and that there is no major downside to the warming anyway, why would it be better to expend energy uselessly and then say we tried?

At least partially disagreeing with Carl on that point. Although there is a cycle where the globe warms and cools, we are leaping out of the natural parameters of that cycle. Ignoring that is like leaving someone in a burning building because he had a fever anyway.

Probably subject for a separate thread.

I agree. In fact, there already is a global warming thread in WM, so lets move this discussion over there.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:No, people with similar issues tend to gather and live in similar environments. For instance: people who believe in a personal god and savior tend to gather at church, and people who have problems with drug abuse and crime tend to live in ghettos, (not always),

This is the logical fallacy Guilt by Association. By the same "logic" you could say "Sick people tend to gather in hospitals, so if you want to have a healthy baby, don't go to the hospital." or "Sick people tend to gather at hospitals, so a healthy person would stay away from hospitals (even if if they are a health care worker, or have a friend or relative who is sick, having a baby, has a broken pelvis...)"

Typically, ghettos are the home of individuals who have a difficult time adapting to civilization. There is a high level of social assistance, drug addiction, illegal activity, and overall smugness and dullness of thought. Society doesn’t cause ghettos, groups of humans do, humans who usually have very little intellectual potential. Although, once and awhile, a rare intellectual comes out of ghettos, but typically they are the home of people who have a lot of issues.

Well, educated males are probably trying to conserve energy, by watching how many frivolous activities they participate in. IE: sporting events, music concerts.

Moreover, if people were really serious about global warming, they would influence each other to cancel events such as the Olympics or the next rock band world tour, but people would rather have their entertainment. Entertainment is more important to most people than the state of the planet. And that is the height of irresponsibility in my view.

Foreigner,

Yet i dont think it has been shown that, smarter mothers make wiser kids. It may turn out that the most submissive and feminine females provide the best nest sites for brainy offspring. As well as superior milking.
Neither do i believe, has history shown its most exceptional men had especially exceptional mothers.

I think its probably more complicated than that, it depends on the genes of both the mother and father, as each parent could probably generate a huge spectrum of personalities. However, I believe that intelligent parents must increase the chances of intelligent offspring. It seems like common sense to me. For instance: If both parents are scientists, their children usually have the mental skills to also become scientists, while other students are poor in math, have poor memories and so on. Moreover, with intelligent parents, not only is the environment going to be more stimulating, but the chances of the child having the right neurology and hormonal balance should be increased.

You may believe whatever you wish, Ryan, still i see no evidence.
Quite the contrary, it's an indisputable fact that some of the greatest minds came into the world through the bodies of fairly mindless people.
But good milkers they were!

You may believe whatever you wish, Ryan, still i see no evidence.
Quite the contrary, it's an indisputable fact that some of the greatest minds came into the world through the bodies of fairly mindless people.
But good milkers they were!

yes, but only some of the greatest minds. I would explain it by suggesting that two mediocre people could probably pass on different masculine and feminine qualities that when combined together create the makings of an intellectual.

However, more intelligent people are increasing the chances because it is almost guaranteed that their child will find it easier to master skills like language, basic logic and so on. I would say its all probability, but as we learn more about how the environment influences development, and how genes influence development, we can maximize the probability of intellectual development. However, I still believe genes are more primary than the environment, and I also believe that you are giving too much weight to the importance of breastfeeding.

Elizabeth,

This is the logical fallacy Guilt by Association. By the same "logic" you could say "Sick people tend to gather in hospitals, so if you want to have a healthy baby, don't go to the hospital." or "Sick people tend to gather at hospitals, so a healthy person would stay away from hospitals (even if if they are a health care worker, or have a friend or relative who is sick, having a baby, has a broken pelvis...)"

This isn't necessarily bad logic, to make judgments based on association. For instance: I wouldn't spend too much time in a hospital if I didn't have to because there are higher concentrations of harmful viruses, bacteria and germs in hospitals compared to my home. Why? because this is where sick people gather. That is the same reason why I didn't spend my late evenings hanging out in ghettos. Why? because higher rates of crime occur in these areas of the city compared to other areas, so I'm increasing my chances of being a victim of crime by spending time there. It is the same logic that causes parents to move their children out of ghettos because they want a safer place for their children.

Carl,

Actually we have the fleecers and the drainers both making a living from the average citizen, who is the slave and does most of the giving.

yes, true, but many of those who are taking more than the middle class are giving back to the society by reinvesting back into their companies. And then there are those who abuse their power, and waste the financial resources they make.

Much of the uppermost class is addicted to drugs of various kinds, participates in illegal activities, hates the authority of legitimate aspects of the state, such as the Constitution, and feels justified in it's shady behavior by a feeling of elitism (which includes a fear of victimization by the boorish masses, if those masses were to ever take them to task).

yes, but the United States is worse than many other countries because of how much the economy has grown, and how much resources there is to go around. Basically, when the pie gets larger, and the pieces get larger, there is more temptation for corruption and rampant hedonism.

I'm speaking of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission, among a few others, who do very well making the "whole thing" work for themselves, not ordinary CEOs, accountants, and managers.

The problem I have with your conviction here is that you can never know with absolute certainty that what you have read on the internet is true fact, and not fiction, but you speak as if this conspirary is fact.

Ruling class implies entitlement, conspiracy, and invites corruption.

not necessarily, A ruling class could spread wisdom, the importance of empirical investigation, skepticism and curiosity. Socrates even said that government could work if the leaders were philosophers and true thinkers. I think government is necessary because it is the only way to make grand scale decisions other than corporate power.

Wouldn't it make more sense to like figure out which one is correct and then act accordingly?

I maintain that with our current technology and understanding, it is almost impossible to pinpoint with absolute certainty what the cause(s) of global warming are. So all we can do is try to narrow it down at this point. However, perhaps in the future, we will have intelligent machines with sensors better than our present technology that will be able to better analyze data by collecting thousands of terabytes, and doing comparative analyzes far better than any lab tech working under a microscope.

Why? What concentration?

well, one of the theories out there that I believe you eluded to either was the fact that there are solar flares coming from the sun, which could be one of the major causes of the warming. Moreover, with the mirrors in orbit, scientists are trying to reflect only a smaller concentration of those flares onto the earth's surface, thereby decreasing their overall potency.

I wonder why?

oil interests, yes. but change is slow, and it will probably happen in countries other than the US first, where oil lobbyists have less power of influence. The US will be forced to switch over reluctantly once they realize that they no longer have a competitive edge in the automotive industry.

If it isn't man-made and there's nothing we can do, why mess with mirrors, your plan A?

Because as I said before, we can never know for sure if it is man-made, and even if human action can counter-act the warming that is happening. However, despite our lack of certainty, it is still intelligent to take all the necessary measures just in case because the threat is so great to human survival.

If it is possible to determine that it is a natural cyclic event, and that there is nothing we can do, and that there is no major downside to the warming anyway, why would it be better to expend energy uselessly and then say we tried?

we have no way of being absolutely certain, so as I have said, it is better to be safe, than to be sorry. Basically it comes down to this:

I would rather see the world waste billions of dollars, than to take no action, and then a global environmental calamity renders the planet uninhabitable, and we all perish.

I wouldn't spend too much time in a hospital if I didn't have to because there are higher concentrations of harmful viruses, bacteria and germs in hospitals compared to my home. Why? because this is where sick people gather. That is the same reason why I didn't spend my late evenings hanging out in ghettos. Why? because higher rates of crime occur in these areas of the city compared to other areas, so I'm increasing my chances of being a victim of crime by spending time there. It is the same logic that causes parents to move their children out of ghettos because they want a safer place for their children.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The long-term consequence of intellectuals deciding not to reproduce could be far worse, than if the smart males found the smartest, most genetically fit females, and had a child.

I'm not sure that two wise adults producing a child is the best way to propagate wisdom through out the world.

First, there's always the chance that no matter how wise the parents are, the child could still grow up to be just as ignorant as any other human. Second, it's usually best for humans to reproduce no later than their 20's because the quality of the mother's egg and the father's sperm has been shown to decrease as they get older.

Now this causes a problem, because when two wise individuals are in their 20's, chances are they still have a lot of work to do, philosophically speaking, before they can reach their full potential. Having children requires a lot of time and effort, so we're kind of faced with a decision of do we want to have a baby now while we're most likely to produce a healthy child and risk hindering our own philosophical development, or do we wait to have children so we can reach our philosophical potential even though the quality of the genetic material will probably have been reduced by this time.

There's plenty of other pit falls to having children under our current circumstances. Infants require constant attention, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Parents are also often required by law to provide the child certain things and one might be put in a position where they are forced by the state to do things they otherwise would not want to do. There's also the chance that one becomes so emotionally attached to the child that philosophical and spiritual matters end up taking a back seat. In the case of the wise individual this means much less time for truth and enlightenment. So not only does his own consciousness suffer, but chances are he wont have enough energy and time to communicate what wisdom he has gained to others.

Maybe it would be best if some wise individuals wanted to adopt a child after infancy, as to avoid the responsibility of that stage, and find a child who is a little bit older, at least 3-5 years old. The problem with adoption is that chances are a wise individual will not fit all of the criteria of what the state wants from adopting parents, and I think it can be fairly expensive. Even if two wise individuals managed to juggle raising a child with their own philosophical development, one still wonders; is this the best way to spend one's efforts, as opposed to fulfilling their own potential and spreading wisdom and truth by using certain media outlets via the internet to reach as large an audience as possible? I might be over-estimating the burden of child-rearing, but if it wasn't so difficult and time consuming it would probably be a more viable option for the propagation of wisdom. Hopefully with the development of technology, the difficulty of rearing children will be greatly reduced and it can become a more feasible option for two wise individuals to reproduce and therefore help bring other wise individuals into the world.

In order to pass on the genetics that support wisdom and do so at a time when the child is most likely to be healthy - and give the parents enough time to develop before raising that child - thus nurturing wisdom rather than just pass on their own under-developed habits, people should have children younger, and grandparents should raise those children. If people are having children younger, the grandparents would also be younger, therefore not too old to take care of the grandchildren. They are still raising their own progeny, hence the development of wisdom that works with that set of genes still matches. Parents would still be parents, but this would put the grandness back in "grandparent" and give more benefits to all 3 generations.

If people are having children younger, the grandparents would also be younger, therefore not too old to take care of the grandchildren. They are still raising their own progeny, hence the development of wisdom that works with that set of genes still matches. Parents would still be parents, but this would put the grandness back in "grandparent" and give more benefits to all 3 generations.

This is actually a great idea. Besides the benefits you mentioned, it would be more economically sound. For example, women wouldn't have to waste a considerable part of their salaries on daycare centers, and children would be happier. Also, grandparents wouldn't be too tired to raise children, because someone else raised theirs.

This is actually a great idea. Besides the benefits you mentioned, it would be more economically sound. For example, women wouldn't have to waste a considerable part of their salaries on daycare centers, and children would be happier. Also, grandparents wouldn't be too tired to raise children, because someone else raised theirs.

I recommend that you both read the book "The female Brain" because what the female author suggests is that as the female brain ages, it becomes more mature, but also more independent - meaning that as menopause sets in, and the chances of becoming a mother are no longer there, the 'mommy' brain naturally shuts off. However, that's not to say that grandmother's cannot substitute their daughter's role, but a grandmother would find it more difficult to sacrifice large amounts of time for the sake of the infant. A grandmother would also get tired quicker, and due to her predisposition for independence caused by the hormonal changes of menopause, grandmothers would become discontent with how much time the infant is taking away from their lives.

Interesting fact: A high percentage of all divorces occur after women go through menopause, through the choice of the woman, basically, the hormonal changes cause a sort of awakening, where women suddenly become tired of how dependent and needy their cynical and miserable husbands are, and that is when they leave, and report feeling the most free and happy they have in their entire lives.

"The female brain", I highly recommend it, its a good read, one of the most modern and up to date empirical studies on female psychology I know of.

I think that educated people not having kids because of social, economic or environmental reasons is folly, given that they are the people we need to have children and look after the world, creating conditions from which wisdom might spring.

As for the wise, for them the world is full of children, regardless of age. Their natural inclination and their best role is to raise the adult-children into wise people, rather than raise their own babies. But they probably have better genetics, so maybe it would be a good idea for them to donate to a sperm/egg bank, as long as they aren't burdened in some way by the offspring. Its a small issue though.

This raises the issue of them receiving the care they need in times of trouble and infirm. Once their parents are dead who is there to look after them? Other relatives maybe. Thankfully many now have a government that will look after them. As for wise institutions, places where wise people gather to live together, while many might see them primarily as a means of generating wisdom directly, it may be their main function is for practical sustenance and care giving.

Stepping into the genetics debate, i think intelligent parents have an increased chance of producing genetic intelligence in offspring, that's my experience anyway, and it seems to follow genetic inheritance generally. Why would people have a lot of similarities in many areas, appearance, disease propensity, etc, as we know, yet not the brain? Despite that however i consider that intelligence in male offspring isn't dependent on the mother being intelligent. Pretty much every great man is going to have a mother of much lesser intelligence.

Despite that however i consider that intelligence in male offspring isn't dependent on the mother being intelligent. Pretty much every great man is going to have a mother of much lesser intelligence.

Yes, perhaps it will eventually be proven that a father has more weight on the genetic fitness of his son, while a mother has more genetic weight on the daughter.

For instance: perhaps an airhead mother will always have airhead daughters, but she can still have an intellectual son, if the father is genetically fit. However, if the mother is intelligent, and the father has serious genetic flaws, then the daughter could still turn out to be intelligent, but a son could have some of the same flaws. That is just what my intuition tells me from experience, but I could be wrong.

I only say that because I have a family member who has five children, four from one father, and one from another. Her first four children all have major issues, but so do both the parents. Both are very dull and illogical. However, the black sheep son from the first marriage is quite gifted, but so was the father.

I've seen that sort of thing happen in other cases as well. It would be a good empirical study I think...

I recommend that you both read the book "The female Brain" because what the female author suggests is that as the female brain ages, it becomes more mature, but also more independent - meaning that as menopause sets in, and the chances of becoming a mother are no longer there, the 'mommy' brain naturally shuts off. However, that's not to say that grandmother's cannot substitute their daughter's role, but a grandmother would find it more difficult to sacrifice large amounts of time for the sake of the infant. A grandmother would also get tired quicker, and due to her predisposition for independence caused by the hormonal changes of menopause, grandmothers would become discontent with how much time the infant is taking away from their lives.

Well, Eliza did say that couples should start having their children earlier in life. If this is the case, the grandma could start raising the babies long before menopause sets in, and by the time it does, the kids would be in their teens. Teens don't need the ridiculous amount of time that infants do, so the grandma can still be quite independent.

Let me do the math for you. If I had had my first daughter at 17, and she had her first daughter at 17, and assuming I will reach menopause at 52 (which sounds reasonable to me), my first grandchild would be in college by the time I reach menopause! And I would have started caring for the babies when I was 34. A good age, imo.

-Elizabeth Isabelle-
In the past, all men cared about was the trophy wife - the prettiest woman he could get. Intelligence was considered a negative trait in a woman, so she was discouraged from intellectual persuits and kept undereducated.

What guys really want in a wife

Peter Holder, editor of men's Style Australia, reveals the secret signs that make men drop the rock.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:For instance: perhaps an airhead mother will always have airhead daughters, but she can still have an intellectual son, if the father is genetically fit.

I know of several examples of airhead mothers having intelligent daughters, and have read of other examples. These may not mean a lot in the overall scheme of things, but they keep my mind open on the topic.

I know of several examples of airhead mothers having intelligent daughters, and have read of other examples. These may not mean a lot in the overall scheme of things, but they keep my mind open on the topic.

Yes, it is a little too early to say with certainty how much weight genetic determinism has compared to environmental determinism, but I tend to weigh the genetic side a little more. However, I believe that the genes responsible for embryonic development, meaning the genes that shape ones sex, brain structure, hormonal balances, etc... are the genes that have more weight than the genes that interact on a daily basis with environmental inputs throughout ones life. Those genes that regulate certain protein production are indeed more flexible than the ones responsible for early embryonic development.

For a scientist.

of course, who else could conduct empirical studies? a sage? no, he's too busy bathing in the infinite every day... ; )